Re: [PATCH 1/2] arm64: dts: ls1028a: add missing CAN nodes

[Michael Walle <michael@walle.cc>]

Am 2020-09-24 17:53, schrieb Leo Li:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Michael Walle <michael@walle.cc>
>> Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2020 6:31 AM
>> To: Leo Li <leoyang.li@nxp.com>
>> Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; devicetree@vger.kernel.org; 
>> linux-
>> kernel@vger.kernel.org; linux-can@vger.kernel.org; Shawn Guo
>> <shawnguo@kernel.org>; Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>; Marc Kleine-
>> Budde <mkl@pengutronix.de>; Joakim Zhang <qiangqing.zhang@nxp.com>
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] arm64: dts: ls1028a: add missing CAN nodes
>> 
>> Am 2020-09-24 02:35, schrieb Leo Li:
>> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> From: Michael Walle <michael@walle.cc>
>> >> Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2020 4:57 AM
>> >> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; devicetree@vger.kernel.org;
>> >> linux-
>> >> kernel@vger.kernel.org; linux-can@vger.kernel.org
>> >> Cc: Shawn Guo <shawnguo@kernel.org>; Leo Li <leoyang.li@nxp.com>;
>> Rob
>> >> Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>; Marc Kleine-Budde
>> <mkl@pengutronix.de>;
>> >> Joakim Zhang <qiangqing.zhang@nxp.com>; Michael Walle
>> >> <michael@walle.cc>
>> >> Subject: [PATCH 1/2] arm64: dts: ls1028a: add missing CAN nodes
>> >>
>> >> The LS1028A has two FlexCAN controller. These are compatible with the
>> >> ones
>> >> from the LX2160A. Add the nodes.
>> >>
>> >> The first controller was tested on the Kontron sl28 board.
>> >>
>> >> Signed-off-by: Michael Walle <michael@walle.cc>
>> >> ---
>> >>  arch/arm64/boot/dts/freescale/fsl-ls1028a.dtsi | 18
>> >> ++++++++++++++++++
>> >>  1 file changed, 18 insertions(+)
>> >>
>> >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/freescale/fsl-ls1028a.dtsi
>> >> b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/freescale/fsl-ls1028a.dtsi
>> >> index 0efeb8fa773e..807ee921ec12 100644
>> >> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/freescale/fsl-ls1028a.dtsi
>> >> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/freescale/fsl-ls1028a.dtsi
>> >> @@ -386,6 +386,24 @@
>> >>  			status = "disabled";
>> >>  		};
>> >>
>> >> +		can0: can@2180000 {
>> >> +			compatible = "fsl,ls1028ar1-flexcan", "fsl,lx2160ar1-
>> >> flexcan";
>> >
>> > The explicit compatible strings cannot be found in the binding, but
>> > matched by the "fsl,<processor>-flexcan" pattern in the binding.  Is
>> > this considered to be acceptable now?
>> 
>> What is the consequence if it is not acceptable? replacing the pattern
>> with individual compatible strings?
> 
> There is a recommendation in the kernel documentation quoted below:
> 
>   7) The wildcard "<chip>" may be used in compatible strings, as in
>      the following example:
> 
>          - compatible: Must contain '"nvidia,<chip>-pcie",
>            "nvidia,tegra20-pcie"' where <chip> is tegra30, tegra132, 
> ...
> 
>      As in the above example, the known values of "<chip>" should be
>      documented if it is used.
> 
> But I am not sure if this is still a hard requirement.  If so, we
> should list the processors in the binding.

Marc, I'd convert this to yaml format, may I put your name as the
maintainer in the binding?

-michael